Association of the Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease gene ARHGEF10 with paclitaxel induced peripheral neuropathy in NCCTG N08CA (Alliance)
Introduction
Polyneuropathies rank among the most common neurological disorders. In the majority of cases, polyneuropathy is conceptualized as an “acquired” disorder such as from chronic hyperglycemia in diabetics or from other toxic exposures. However, toxic exposure appears not to be deterministic, because only some exposed patients will develop neuropathy, while others may not. Genetic variability between individuals is a possible explanation raising the possibility that polyneuropathy susceptibility may in some patient populations be a complex genetic trait.
Charcot–Marie–Tooth (CMT) disease refers to a group of hereditary polyneuropathies that are monogenic with high penetrance. Approximately 80 genes have been conclusively identified as CMT genes [1], [2], [3], [4].
Genomic studies of complex traits may gain additional power from leveraging what is already known about mutations in genes that are responsible for Mendelian diseases [5], [6]. Recently, we reported a genetic discovery study on a toxic neuropathy by massively parallel (“nextgen”) sequencing of all CMT genes in 119 patients. Patients were part of the chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) observational clinical trial Alliance N08C1. The lead finding of the study (under the pre-specified primary endpoint) was the association of the CMT gene ARHGEF10 with susceptibility to polyneuropathy. Three single nucleotide variants (SNV) contributed to the per-gene testing, rs9657362, rs2294039, and rs17683288. Of these, rs9657362 had the strongest effect with an odds ratio of 4.8 and a significance level of p = 4 × 10− 4 [7].
Replication in an independent patient cohort represents the gold standard for validating genetic associations. In the case of CIPN, such validation has not always been successful (e.g. Schneider et al., [8] was refuted by Bergmann et al., [9] and Kulkarni et al. [10]). A dominant reason for poor reproducibility among these studies may be related to the poor quality of neurological assessments of polyneuropathy reported in many studies performed in oncology. Oftentimes, polyneuropathy is only sporadically assessed by cancer care providers who are not well-trained in the subtleties of the assessment required. Accordingly, some authors concluded that these studies failed to provide reliable discrimination of who suffered from CIPN because a “phenotype of convenience” was used [11] instead of a prospectively implemented assessment of polyneuropathy with well-validated methods.
Our recent study N08C1 implemented a different approach to polyneuropathy phenotyping. We quantified the rate of progression of polyneuropathy over the study period as the “slope” of symptom progression. The rate (or slope) was derived from up to 12 weekly polyneuropathy assessments conducted while patients were exposed to repeat doses of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Polyneuropathy assessments were performed with a patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (CIPN20). This instrument was developed and validated by neurologists for the assessment of peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients [12], [13], [14], [15]. The CIPN20 methodology was recently demonstrated to cross-validate well with expert neurological exams [15]. Considering the concerns in the field discussed above, we sought to validate our published findings in Alliance N08C1 in a similarly designed study replicating polyneuropathy phenotyping and patient selection as closely as possible.
Here we report testing of the ARHGEF10 gene single nucleotide variants (SNV) rs9657362, rs2294039, and rs17683288 in an independent cohort, the CIPN clinical study Alliance N08CA [7].
Section snippets
Patients
The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG, now “Alliance”) study N08CA is a recently reported randomized controlled trial of glutathione for prevention of CIPN in patients with ovarian or lung cancer [16]. Patients in the study were at least 18 years old and had to have a life expectancy of greater than 6 months and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy (from any cause including
CIPN cases and controls
Patient selection for the present study is shown in a Consort diagram (Fig. 1). 138 patients were eligible based on the having received the same paclitaxel chemotherapy regimen and having a minimum of three serial CIPN symptom assessments available. Of these patients, 63 were “uncategorized” because they had slopes of symptom progression that were not significantly different from the group median. The slopes (and standard errors) for these patients is shown in Fig. 1 (left) depicting that error
Discussion
The present study was designed to allow independent validation of a recently published report on CIPN genetics [7]. The original study, Alliance N08C1, was the first in the field to integrate cutting-edge next generation sequencing and reliable CIPN phenotyping by serial PRO with the CIPN20 instrument. The study concluded that mutations in non-CMT alleles, i.e., SNV, in the CMT gene ARHGEF10 were associated with CIPN. The present study successfully replicated this observation in an independent
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have not declared any conflict of interest. None of the authors has a financial or personal relationship with a third party whose interests could be positively or negatively influenced by the article's content.
Acknowledgments
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute Of Nursing Research (NINR) under Award Number R01NR015259 (to A.S.B.), by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) under Award Numbers U10CA180821, U10CA180882 and 1UG1CA189823 (to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology), and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) under Award Number KL2TR 000136 (to Mayo Clinic). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
References (20)
- et al.
The development of an EORTC quality of life questionnaire to assess chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: the QLQ-CIPN20
Eur. J. Cancer
(2005) - et al.
The chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy outcome measures standardization study: from consensus to the first validity and reliability findings
Ann. Oncol.
(2013) - et al.
Physician-assessed and patient-reported outcome measures in chemotherapy-induced sensory peripheral neurotoxicity: two sides of the same coin
Ann. Oncol.
(2014) - et al.
Slowed conduction and thin myelination of peripheral nerves associated with mutant rho Guanine-nucleotide exchange factor 10
Am. J. Hum. Genet.
(2003) - et al.
Current status and future prospects for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity
Eur. J. Cancer
(2002) - et al.
Inherited neuropathies: clinical overview and update
Muscle Nerve
(2013) - et al.
Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease subtypes and genetic testing strategies
Ann. Neurol.
(2011) - et al.
Mechanisms of disease: a molecular genetic update on hereditary axonal neuropathies
Nat. Clin. Pract. Neurol.
(2006) - et al.
Genetics of Charcot–Marie–Tooth (CMT) Disease within the Frame of the Human Genome Project Success
Genes (Basel)
(2014) - et al.
Sequencing studies in human genetics: design and interpretation
Nat. Rev. Genet.
(2013)
Cited by (40)
Diagnosis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in a child with orbital rhabdomyosarcoma and vincristine-induced axonal polyneuropathy
2023, Pediatric Hematology Oncology JournalChemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
2022, Comprehensive PharmacologyNeurological safety of oxaliplatin in patients with uncommon variants in Charcot-Marie-tooth disease genes
2020, Journal of the Neurological SciencesCitation Excerpt :While such variants are individually rare, they are in aggregate common. If such SNV are encountered in CMT-associated genes, the concern may be heightened by recent studies that linked CIPN from taxanes to certain genetic variants in some of the CMT-associated genes including rare “singleton” SNV occurring in a given study population only once [3–5]. As DNA sequencing technology has recently outpaced the availability of solid clinical evidence, clinicians are increasingly confronted with the question whether to incorporate a genetic test result of uncertain significance into a treatment recommendation and how to interpret many of the incidental findings.
The molecular genetics of chemotherapy–induced peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2017, Critical Reviews in Oncology/HematologyCitation Excerpt :For the six studies utilising a genome wide approach (Won et al., 2012; Baldwin et al., 2012; Leandro-García et al., 2013; Fernandez-Rozadilla et al., 2013; Diouf et al., 2015; Abraham et al., 2014), and four studies which genotype a large array of SNPs (Broyl et al., 2010; Sucheston et al., 2011; McWhinney-Glass et al., 2013; Hertz et al., 2014) parameters for excluding SNPs or subjects were clear. For 39 studies some missing genotype data was evident (Goekkurt et al., 2009; Gamelin et al., 2007; Marsh et al., 2007; Sissung et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2011; Alberola et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2009; Sepe et al., 2012; Kanai et al., 2010; McLeod et al., 2010; Ruzzo et al., 2007; Hong et al., 2011; Fountzilas et al., 2013; Boige et al., 2010; Joerger et al., 2012; Zarate et al., 2010; Pare et al., 2008; Isla et al., 2004; Bergmann et al., 2012; Kumamoto et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010; Boora et al., 2015; Kulkarni et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2010; De Graan et al., 2013; Chua et al., 2009; Ekhart et al., 2008; Bergmann et al., 2011; Lecomte et al., 2006; Custodio et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2015; Lambrechts et al., 2015; Lamba et al., 2014; Bosó et al., 2014; Aplenc et al., 2003; Öfverholm et al., 2010; Fung et al., 2012; Eckhoff et al., 2015), but only in six of these was there an explanation for missingness (Alberola et al., 2004; Boora et al., 2015; Kulkarni et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2010; De Graan et al., 2013; Lamba et al., 2014). For 16 studies it cannot be determined from the information provided whether or not there is missing genotype data (Hertz et al., 2012; Leandro-García et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2012; Guilhaumou et al., 2011; Leskelä et al., 2011; Ruzzo et al., 2014; Cecchin et al., 2013; Bergmann et al., 2012; Beutler et al., 2014; Park et al., 2014; Cortejoso et al., 2013; Hasmats et al., 2012; Apellániz-Ruiz et al., 2015; Hertz et al., 2013b).
Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission
2017, The Lancet Oncology
- 1
These authors have contributed equally.